UP Govt ordered to compensate boy electrocuted by transformer

The monthly interest accruing on the deposit should be payable to the mother of the boy for his upkeep and maintenance till he attains majority, it directed.

The NHRC also recommended that the state government should initiate disciplinary action against the officers of the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (UPSEB) found responsible for installing the transformer in such a “hazardous” manner and also those who were expected to exercise control and supervision over its installation and maintenance.

The state government should also examine the adequacy of the existing guidelines or instructions for the installation and maintenance of transformers of such high load and to bring about necessary changes so as to avoid recurrence of such incidence in future, the NHRC suggested.

The bench gave these direction on a complaint filed by one Hari Singh of Agra that his eight-year-old son, Pappu, was seriously injured on march one, 1997, on coming in contact with an electric transformer which was installed on the ground in a hazardous manner without a platform and proper fencing. The boy’s arms were badly burnt in the accident and had to be amputated. The accident, which he attributed to the gross negligence of the authorities of the UPSEB, had left the boy permanently disabled and dependent on others throughout his life, the complaint stated.

However, the Uttar Pradesh government in its report to the Commission quoting chief engineer, UPSEB, Agra stated that the boy, who was being chased by other children, fell near the transformer after “breaking through the temporary fencing”. While trying to get out, he caught hold of the 11 kv wire which was connected with the insulating pipe which broke and he got electrocuted, the report stated.

The state government informed that UPSEB had paid Rs 20,000 to the father of the boy while the local officer and staff collected Rs 5,000 which was paid to the complainant on humanitarian ground. Meanwhile, the NHRC came to know that the father of the victim died in May 1998 as a result of which the boy and his mother have been left helpless.

The bench felt that on the basis of photographs annexed with the complaint and the report of the UPSEB, it was discernible that the transformer of 11kv line had been installed on the ground without a platform and adequate fencing. “The so-called temporary fencing was nothing more than a semblance of a loose network of wires with wide gaps of several feet each in between,” it said and added that the transformer was easily accessible to any child who happened to be around.

“Any fencing which breaks down when a small boy runs into it would not in any case pass the test of correct standard of care required,” the NHRC said and held that the authorities of the UPSEB, particularly those responsible for the actual installation of the transformer, were “not only negligent in the discharge of their duties but their act was such that it would render culpable.”

The NHRC also discounted the state government’s plea of contributory negligence of the boy by saying that the victim by virtue of his tender age was not expected to know the hazardous nature of the equipment installed nor to exercise due care and diligence while approaching such equipment.

The UPSEB violated clear directions prescribed in the rules for the safety of the people as the transformer was installed at ground level without a platform or even a fence in a busy public place that had a primary school in the vicinity indicating that young children often played or had to pass by it. A municipal tap was adjacent to the transformer and it was being used by the people, the NHRC said and observed that “the conduct of the authorities clearly amounts to gross negligence almost bordering to recklessness.”

The Rs 20,000 paid to the complainant could not amount to any real compensation let alone adequate compensation for the irreparable loss/injury sustained by the boy who became permanently disabled and dependent on others for livelihood throughout his life. So the victim was entitled to immediate interim relief of an additional Rs 100,000 for the “gross violation of his right to bodily integrity and a life of dignity”, the bench stated.